Refusing to marry with the deceased after having relation does not constitute offence under Section 306 IPC: Supreme Court

The Hon’ble  supreme Court India allowed the petition of the  appellant in a criminal appeal arising out of the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad which dismissed the application filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy set aside the order of the High Court viewing that the High Court has committed an error by rejecting the appellant’s application to quash  proceedings against her u/S 482 Cr.PC simply on the ground of factual disputes.

SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT.

The main submission of the appellant’s learned counsel was that ‘there is absolutely no basis to proceed against the appellant for alleged offence under Section 306 IPC, 1860  and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC ST Act. It was submitted that the deceased himself consumed the poison because his marriage with appellant was rejected by her family members. it was submitted that except that the appellant was harassed by the deceased by following her and proposing marriage with him there is absolutely no basis to allege that the appellant has abetted the suicide of the deceased.

It was submitted, the material available on record does not constitute offence under both the Sections and the appellant cannot be subjected to trial.

SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENT STATE.

On the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted that the deceased was maintaining relation with the appellant. The deceased consumed poison after the appellant refused to marry him.

It was submitted that refusing to marry after maintaining relation come within the meaning of Section 306 of IPC. Also the family member of appellant abused the deceased with casteist words.

 

After hearing from the learned counsels and perusing the impugned order and other material on record, the Hon’ble Court observed that except the statements of complainant and other witness that the appellant was in a relation with the deceased, there is no other material to show that the appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased. And there is no material to allege that the appellant abetted for suicide u/S 306 IPC.

On the basis of material on record, the Court viewed that merely because the deceased consumed poison in front of the house of the appellant, does not indicate any relation of the appellant with the deceased.

Abetment involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

As for the allegation under Section 3(2)(v) of Sc ST Act, the Court noted that except vague and bald statement that the appellant and her family members abused the deceased with casteist words  there is nothing on record to show that the commission attract the Section.

To put weight on the appeal for quashing the order of NBW against the appellant, the Court relied on the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 which dealt with the aspect of abetment.

In the case, the Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Beside, the judgment also observed that each persons suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. It is impossible to lay down any straightjacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decide on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

The Court also reiterated the views held in  the case Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, that

12.       before holding the accused guilty of an offence under Section 306, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in  order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in case of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

 

The Court also relied and referred to decision of case S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr.(2010) 12 SCC 190 that without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. In order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit the offence. The act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

The Court also considered the case of Rajiv Thapar & Ors vs. Madan Lal Kapur (2013) 3 SCC 330 which considered the scope of the provision under Section 482 Cr.PC and laid down steps which should be followed by the High Court to determine the veracity of the prayers u/S 482. The steps as per paragraph 30 of the said  case are:

30.1.  Step one:  whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

 30.2.Step two:  whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges leveled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?

 30.3.Step three:  whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4.Step four:  whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

 30.5.  If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.PC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 

On the basis of above ratio decided by the Court, the Supreme Court viewed that except the statement that the deceased was in a relation with the appellant, there is no material at all to show that the appellant  was maintaining any relation with the deceased. In fact when the deceased was stalking the appellant, the appellant complained in the police station for continuously calling the appellant and  proposing for marriage or he will commit suicide, for which the same is evident in the statement of Sub Inspector. Therefore after having regard to such material and in  absence of any material on record, the Court summed that there is no basis to proceed against the appellant for the alleged offence.

It would be travesty to justice to compel the appellant to face criminal trial without any credible material – Supreme Court.

In view of the above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the order of the High Court and allowed the application by quashing the order/NBW as well as criminal proceedings against the appellant.

 

Fact:

The brother of deceased made a complaint against the appellant’s family in a police station at Meerut, under Sections, 328, 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section  3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

He alleged that his brother was called by the appellant at her house. When he went to her house, the appellant’s family abused him with casteist words and forcefully administered poison to him and consequently died in the hospital due to the negligence of hospital.

After investigation, the final report was filed only against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC and cognizance was taken whereby non-bailable warrant was issued.

The appellant approached the High Court for quashing of cognizance order and non-bailable warrant issued against him. The High Court disposed off the application by an impugned order mainly on the ground that the disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated at the present stage under Section 482, Cr.PC.

Therefore the appellant, being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

 

Case:

Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ( Criminal Appeal No. 1022 of 2021)

DOJ: 17.09.2021.